Joined: Wed June 6th, 2007, 15:58 GMTPosts: 11483Location: in the land where dreams are made....

Okinawa Soba wrote:

Lily Rose wrote:

But at least it has lead us to Okinawa Soba's flicker thread, which just has a whole lot of good pictures on it......... think I will go and steal some for my screen saver....

Please do ! Glad you like the pics ! (You and Dylan have good taste)

--- Okinawa Soba

Yes, we do have good taste..... when I first got to your thread I think I spent way more than an hour looking just the first time..... I like them for their photo composition and then for your notes (although I only got thru part of them so far)......... and the colors that were added..... I can easily see why he used them for his work.....

Hmmm... Milkcow later notes that the repurposed Life Vietnam cover is not in the catalog. A question for those who have seen the actual exhibition in the gallery. Is the Life painting part of the exhibit?

I think the "LIFE" picture is not a Dylan painting and was included on the Gagosian Dylan page by mistake.

same with rollin and tumblin, bob didnt give credit to Muddy, but nobody thinks twice about the fact that Muddy never gave credit from where he got it, because he certainly didnt make it up. its a blogosphere controversy.

That one really aggravates me when people boohoo Bob on that...Muddy definitely stole it from someone else...soooo....I always bring up Muddy snagged it too.

For a bit of perspective, here's an interesting page about the sources Quentin Tarantino used in "Kill Bill": http://www.tarantino.info/wiki/index.ph ... nces_GuideAlmost the entire movie was constructed by quoting (some of you might say copying) other movies. It's still a great work of art and one of the best movies of the early 2000s.

[Btw the international (longer) cut of Tarantino's "Death Proof" includes a scene in a truck stop in which the camera pans to a rack of magazines, clearly showing a copy of the then current issue of "Rolling Stone" magazine with Dylan on the cover. Gotta love that!]

The publicist for the gallery did confirm that it is a Dylan image, although the painting is conspicuous in its absence from both the installation and the catalog. Its absence may be intended as a way to bring extra attention to it.

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

The publicist for the gallery did confirm that it is a Dylan image, although the painting is conspicuous in its absence from both the installation and the catalog. Its absence may be intended as a way to bring extra attention to it.

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

I still think it's a mistake. They also include two "Brazil" paintings in the "Asia Series". Go figure.

Stylistically and in terms of content it does not fit into the "Asia Series" and does not look like a (Dylan) painting.

It might be some sort of Dylan-created work, but it's not a painting. The picture of the airplanes is identical to the photo on the cover of LIFE magazine, February 25, 1966. If Dylan had done a paiting of it, you'd see the brushstrokes etc. as in the other paintings. The original cover of LIFE magazine does not have the full text that you can see in the Gagosian image, though. So maybe it was created digitally for use on the website as some kind of cryptic joke.

Or it's a work by somebody else and the Gallery's web admin used it by mistake. Since it also deals with Asia it was perhaps filed with Dylan's works by accident.

I see that someone commenting as "Anonymous" on "BOB DYLAN ENCYCLOPEDIA: A BLOG" (by David Gray) has copy/pasted your first post on this thread. He or she does give you credit though, along with the links to the photosin your collection, the incriminating evidence you might say. Someone is obviously stirring the pot (or the plot) and not accidentally. It must be those merry little elves again. There's quite a good discussion going on there and that, of course, is/was to be expected.

Anonymous said... This was posted on Expecting Rain yesterday: Looks like bobs been trawling the net for 'inspiration':

"To interested parties posting on "The Asia Series" discussion boards. I found this comment thread via the stats page on my Flickr Account. My Asian photostream had gotten quite a few hits from this discussion board, so I checked things out to see why. ............................................"

Last edited by Leocadia on Mon September 26th, 2011, 20:33 GMT, edited 1 time in total.

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

Mr. Warmuth, my lawyers will be in contact with you for repeating my Sherlock Holmes allusion without crediting me.

The aspect ratio of 96 x 72 given for the "Life Magazine" work differs from the aspect ratio of the actual image they show. So I suspect that the text refers to a different painting and the wrong image file (of a non-Dylan work) was used on the website. The "Life Magazine/Vietnam War" work is NOT part of the exhibition and it is NOT part of the catalogue after all. And it is totally different stylistically from all other known paintings/drawings created by Dylan.

Dylan is interviewd by a "Richard Prince" in the Gagosian catalogue. I take this to be THE Richard Prince, an artist also represented by the Gagosian Gallery. The "Life Magazine" work as presented on the Gagosian website looks VERY MUCH like something Richard Prince could have created. So, maybe a Richard Prince image accidentally ended up on the Dylan page on the Gagosian website because of the interview conncetion between the two.

Joined: Wed June 6th, 2007, 15:58 GMTPosts: 11483Location: in the land where dreams are made....

Fred@Dreamtime wrote:

scottw wrote:

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

Mr. Warmuth, my lawyers will be in contact with you for repeating my Sherlock Holmes allusion without crediting me.

Mr. Bals

My dear Fred,

I want you to know that my lawyers will be contacting your lawyers about your use of a possible quote about Mr. Holmes.

I have read the Sherlock Holmes books quite extensively and I have also read the many spin offs that have been surfacing lately. In having done such reading I have become aware the plan of investigation that allows one to eliminate all the impossibilities in any given situation and being left with the truth of the matter. In doing so, I have discovered that you have used my thoughts on Mr. Holmes and have not given me credit. The fact that I have not made these things public until this moment in time is a minor matter of no importance so will have no place in any defense of your usage of my thoughts.

In the writing of this message to you I have further realized that I may have thought these thoughts before, therefore my lawyers will be contacting my lawyers about contacting your lawyers about your lawyers contacting Mr. Warmuth and I would assume his lawyers. I am not really sure why anymore, but it does seem like someone should have credited someone for something, therefore the party of the third and fourth part should get sued by … by…. Oh heck, I don’t know who should sue who anymore.

Lastly I just want to say that it is a good thing that Mr. A. C. Doyle is no longer alive or he would want to sue somebody too. Abraham Lincoln said that, or maybe it was T.S. Elliott that said that, and if he did and did not credit Mr. Lincoln then he should be sued too.

Joined: Wed June 6th, 2007, 15:58 GMTPosts: 11483Location: in the land where dreams are made....

Does anyone besides me find it really funny that the man who has had more of his output bootlegged and/or imitated than maybe any other person to ever have walk this planet should be whipped on for his use of various other source material items ..... and before anyone says.... "yeah, but if it happened to him, he would be bitchin'" ..... I say.... let he who has not downloaded a bootleg, copied a song from a friend (on line or otherwise), or borrowed a lyric line to try to make someone think you are cool, watch an unauthorized youtube video, or attempted to sing a song in the shower with the Dylan twang .... be the first to post ....

I know I have written seemingly cryptic things on here- maybe I am not good with writing long drawn out thoughts... maybe I don't want to pin it all down to one idea of thought, when there is so much left unsaid- so I keep it short usually. Well, I really don't mean to be rude, but I have been feeling disappointed by the responses in this thread. I thought of the dire straits song, Private Investigations, it popped into my mind, who knows why. But I was feeling it from Bob's point of view ( or how I think I would feel if I were him- so I guess it's just my feelings in the end). I feel like people are trying to dig up the dirt on him, like it is just some game. If it was me I would wonder why... there's always some excuse to it... but l don't think I would ever get used to it. So there is a lot to ponder for me- why do we have to know his intentions. If you want to ask him if he is a criminal, and tell him that you like his ass, go ahead I guess. This is from the people who love his music the most... it's just strange to me. I can't express myself well here- except to say maybe we should think about the boundaries between and artist and the "audience" or whatever- are there some? I think it must take a lot of courage for someone like Bob, who I consider to be a great artist, not to just close the blinds, and forget trying to do any of it for the public. Yeah, I think the work brings up valid questions about the meaning of authenticity in art, etc., but I think they are questions about art, and maybe about his art, but is it personal- seems like some people just really want to rip into him. Why? Maybe we should investigate ourselves... Wow... sorry, this whole thing sounds horribly corny, and with horrible grammar, but if someone had to be the sap, I guess I will (Lily Rose, I wrote this before your post, hit submit, and then it told me yours had just popped up and to review mine in light of yours, but I think I'll post mine too anyway)

ifitwastruetennessee, I agree with you. I always prefer to give the benefit of a doubt. I'm barely even willing to ever display any sort of creativity because people generally are ruthless and often say with confidence that they understand intentions of someone else. In life and art if you don't care for something or the manner it which it is presented, why not just walk away. Find something that brings you pleasure of joy and try not to rain on everyone else's enjoyment. It's just kind of frustrating, really. As a fan new to the music it seems silly and strange to have so many people dissecting the inspiration and hardly commenting on the worth of the paintings.

I'd love to see them. If I can find the time and finances I just may make the drive.

I hope it is going to be an open trial. I would sit there following the whole trial as if it was a tennis match...my head going from side to side watching all the lawyers in action.....Can I have a VIP seat maybe? You have to PM me about the details, like Gypsydaisy... and not keep me nor Gypsy, in the dark. I have a feelin' this is gonna be the trial of this century!!

Mr. Warmuth, my lawyers will be in contact with you for repeating my Sherlock Holmes allusion without crediting me.

Mr. Bals[/quote]My dear Fred,

I want you to know that my lawyers will be contacting your lawyers about your use of a possible quote about Mr. Holmes.

I have read the Sherlock Holmes books quite extensively and I have also read the many spin offs that have been surfacing lately. In having done such reading I have become aware the plan of investigation that allows one to eliminate all the impossibilities in any given situation and being left with the truth of the matter. In doing so, I have discovered that you have used my thoughts on Mr. Holmes and have not given me credit. The fact that I have not made these things public until this moment in time is a minor matter of no importance so will have no place in any defense of your usage of my thoughts.

In the writing of this message to you I have further realized that I may have thought these thoughts before, therefore my lawyers will be contacting my lawyers about contacting your lawyers about your lawyers contacting Mr. Warmuth and I would assume his lawyers. I am not really sure why anymore, but it does seem like someone should have credited someone for something, therefore the party of the third and fourth part should get sued by … by…. Oh heck, I don’t know who should sue who anymore.

Lastly I just want to say that it is a good thing that Mr. A. C. Doyle is no longer alive or he would want to sue somebody too. Abraham Lincoln said that, or maybe it was T.S. Elliott that said that, and if he did and did not credit Mr. Lincoln then he should be sued too.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this more important matter.

With great respect, Ms. Lily[/quote]

This is very funny actually genuine hilarious Lily Rose. I luve it.....

Does anyone besides me find it really funny that the man who has had more of his output bootlegged and/or imitated than maybe any other person to ever have walk this planet should be whipped on for his use of various other source material items ..... and before anyone says.... "yeah, but if it happened to him, he would be bitchin'" ..... I say.... let he who has not downloaded a bootleg, copied a song from a friend (on line or otherwise), or borrowed a lyric line to try to make someone think you are cool, watch an unauthorized youtube video, or attempted to sing a song in the shower with the Dylan twang .... be the first to post ....

I know I have written seemingly cryptic things on here- maybe I am not good with writing long drawn out thoughts... maybe I don't want to pin it all down to one idea of thought, when there is so much left unsaid- so I keep it short usually. Well, I really don't mean to be rude, but I have been feeling disappointed by the responses in this thread. I thought of the dire straits song, Private Investigations, it popped into my mind, who knows why. But I was feeling it from Bob's point of view ( or how I think I would feel if I were him- so I guess it's just my feelings in the end). I feel like people are trying to dig up the dirt on him, like it is just some game. If it was me I would wonder why... there's always some excuse to it... but l don't think I would ever get used to it. So there is a lot to ponder for me- why do we have to know his intentions. If you want to ask him if he is a criminal, and tell him that you like his ass, go ahead I guess. This is from the people who love his music the most... it's just strange to me. I can't express myself well here- except to say maybe we should think about the boundaries between and artist and the "audience" or whatever- are there some? I think it must take a lot of courage for someone like Bob, who I consider to be a great artist, not to just close the blinds, and forget trying to do any of it for the public. Yeah, I think the work brings up valid questions about the meaning of authenticity in art, etc., but I think they are questions about art, and maybe about his art, but is it personal- seems like some people just really want to rip into him. Why? Maybe we should investigate ourselves... Wow... sorry, this whole thing sounds horribly corny, and with horrible grammar, but if someone had to be the sap, I guess I will (Lily Rose, I wrote this before your post, hit submit, and then it told me yours had just popped up and to review mine in light of yours, but I think I'll post mine too anyway)

nothing wrong with your opinion and you expressed it very well... but make no mistake, not everyone shares your belief and WE DON'T HAVE TO. Like I told Lily, I feel the need to express to you too. I have not disrespected you in anyway, but simply disagreed with your opinion... but yet your post was quite rude to me and I don't even know you. BE RESPECTFUL. I adore Bob's music as much as the next fan, but what makes the world turn is what tickles each person differently. I'm not out to get Bob. I do however think what he did with the marketing of this was rather sneaky. He not only used public domain images, but copyrighted ones and never credited them. That's sneaky. These paintings are his, these impressions are not. They are however marketed by the gallery, AND by his own words in the catalog as if they are his impressions. It is what it is. Just respect we have a difference of opinion.

I know I have written seemingly cryptic things on here- maybe I am not good with writing long drawn out thoughts... maybe I don't want to pin it all down to one idea of thought, when there is so much left unsaid- so I keep it short usually. Well, I really don't mean to be rude, but I have been feeling disappointed by the responses in this thread. I thought of the dire straits song, Private Investigations, it popped into my mind, who knows why. But I was feeling it from Bob's point of view ( or how I think I would feel if I were him- so I guess it's just my feelings in the end). I feel like people are trying to dig up the dirt on him, like it is just some game. If it was me I would wonder why... there's always some excuse to it... but l don't think I would ever get used to it. So there is a lot to ponder for me- why do we have to know his intentions. If you want to ask him if he is a criminal, and tell him that you like his ass, go ahead I guess. This is from the people who love his music the most... it's just strange to me. I can't express myself well here- except to say maybe we should think about the boundaries between and artist and the "audience" or whatever- are there some? I think it must take a lot of courage for someone like Bob, who I consider to be a great artist, not to just close the blinds, and forget trying to do any of it for the public. Yeah, I think the work brings up valid questions about the meaning of authenticity in art, etc., but I think they are questions about art, and maybe about his art, but is it personal- seems like some people just really want to rip into him. Why? Maybe we should investigate ourselves... Wow... sorry, this whole thing sounds horribly corny, and with horrible grammar, but if someone had to be the sap, I guess I will (Lily Rose, I wrote this before your post, hit submit, and then it told me yours had just popped up and to review mine in light of yours, but I think I'll post mine too anyway)

nothing wrong with your opinion and you expressed it very well... but make no mistake, not everyone shares your belief and WE DON'T HAVE TO. Like I told Lily, I feel the need to express to you too. I have not disrespected you in anyway, but simply disagreed with your opinion... but yet your post was quite rude to me and I don't even know you. BE RESPECTFUL. I adore Bob's music as much as the next fan, but what makes the world turn is what tickles each person differently. I'm not out to get Bob. I do however think what he did with the marketing of this was rather sneaky. He not only used public domain images, but copyrighted ones and never credited them. That's sneaky. These paintings are his, these impressions are not. They are however marketed by the gallery, AND by his own words in the catalog as if they are his impressions. It is what it is. Just respect we have a difference of opinion.

I think they are his impressions,are his the paintings but the photographs are not his. his impressions of the people/scenes on the photograph.

Two interesting points...... Our own... restless.... made the NY Times....Whoa baby!!!! ............... and two, Ok, I am hitting two for two.... that I am on the opposite side of the fence from the NY Times..... Yeah!!!! First China and now this one.... oops.... better be quiet.... seems they are listening.....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum